FBI: Justifiable homicides at highest in more than a decade
- Thread starter KenpoTex
- Start date
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
So what's their problem? They said JUSTIFIABLE. That means their life was in danger.
If they had not defended them selves we would see in print, "FBI:MURDERS AT HIGHESGT IN MORE THAN A DECADE".
I'd rather it be the way it is. The good guys won!
Deaf
If they had not defended them selves we would see in print, "FBI:MURDERS AT HIGHESGT IN MORE THAN A DECADE".
I'd rather it be the way it is. The good guys won!
Deaf
gixxershane
Green Belt
I agree 100% and this is why we as citizens cant let the government come in and destroy the second amendment of our constitution!!!
Im happy the suprem cort ruled the DC hand gun ban as unconstitutional!!! the alarming thing is it was a 5 to 4 vote
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
Yes, they were sent to the 'prison of no parole' Matt! No more good time, no more 'vacations' in prison.
Deaf
Deaf
And no more "repeat offenders"
I think perhaps that the recent rulings that law enforcement has no obligation to protect you may have something to do with the rise in Civilian self-defense shootings... we are realizing we cannot wait for assistance and taking it upon ourselves to protect our loved ones and our own lives.
7starmarc
Green Belt
Those rulings may have also given the message to some law enforcement that they are now "off the hook" as far as feeling responsible for citizens safety.
The definition of their legal responsibility may now be affecting their definitions of their moral responsibilities.
It is possible you are correct, but I don't think so. In most places, police shootings are looked at by the department, by the District Attorney, by a Grand Jury - - - or all three. I doubt any but the most stupid cop would feel a license to kill. Oh, and that's not to mention civil court cases...
More likely, moods of potential victims have changed. Once upon a time, "Its safer not to resist a hijacking" and "Give the criminal what they want" were thought to be the 'safer' advice..... well, 9/11 definitively demolished the former. Passengers have been fighting back - and successfully. As to the latter, too many learned too late that what the criminal wanted was to rob, torture and murder their family. People perhaps are waking up to the nature and aims of both terrorists and domestic predators.
More likely, moods of potential victims have changed. Once upon a time, "Its safer not to resist a hijacking" and "Give the criminal what they want" were thought to be the 'safer' advice..... well, 9/11 definitively demolished the former. Passengers have been fighting back - and successfully. As to the latter, too many learned too late that what the criminal wanted was to rob, torture and murder their family. People perhaps are waking up to the nature and aims of both terrorists and domestic predators.
OP
OP
KenpoTex
Senior Master
One of those rulings was during the 80's so I don't know that that has anything to do with it, other than the possibility that more people are familiar with them...?
I think this may have a lot to do with it.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
They don't have a legal responsibilty to defend any one person. Never did. Courts decided that long ago after cops left people to defend themselves and the 'victims' decided to sue the cops. Cops have no responsibilty for any particular person, legal or moral.
Their job is to keep order in society. It's real general and real vauge.
Deaf
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
Matt,
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Articles/PoliceProtection.htm#CASEHIST1
Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening, Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help (Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).
Linda Riss, who telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened: "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her" (Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)).
Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006) the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused. Indeed, they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," but failed to remove him from his father's custody ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?" Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991).
The court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf".
Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her. So, when they failed to do so and she was injured, they were not held to be liable.Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990).
Citizens injured because the police failed to protect them can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action. That very deceptive case, because it appears to favor Burch, who was the injured party, in part, states:
"The constitutional violation actionable under 1983 is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process. Therefore, to determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred, it is necessary to ask what process the State provided, and whether it was constitutionally adequate."
"We express no view on the ultimate merits of Burch's claim; we hold only that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim under 1983 for violation of his procedural due process rights."
Many states, however, have specifically denied such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846, which state in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." No doubt,Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) would still assert that those states provide adequate remedies.
Another key point stated in Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990))is that of making "due process" dependent, at least in part, on fiscal issues. To quote that case again:
"Due process, as this Court often has said, is a flexible concept that varies with the particular situation. To determine what procedural protections the Constitution requires in a particular case, we weigh several factors:
'First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)."
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Articles/PoliceProtection.htm#CASEHIST1
Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening, Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help (Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).
Linda Riss, who telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened: "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her" (Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)).
Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006) the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused. Indeed, they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," but failed to remove him from his father's custody ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?" Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991).
The court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf".
Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her. So, when they failed to do so and she was injured, they were not held to be liable.Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990).
Citizens injured because the police failed to protect them can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action. That very deceptive case, because it appears to favor Burch, who was the injured party, in part, states:
"The constitutional violation actionable under 1983 is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process. Therefore, to determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred, it is necessary to ask what process the State provided, and whether it was constitutionally adequate."
"We express no view on the ultimate merits of Burch's claim; we hold only that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim under 1983 for violation of his procedural due process rights."
Many states, however, have specifically denied such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846, which state in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." No doubt,Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) would still assert that those states provide adequate remedies.
Another key point stated in Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990))is that of making "due process" dependent, at least in part, on fiscal issues. To quote that case again:
"Due process, as this Court often has said, is a flexible concept that varies with the particular situation. To determine what procedural protections the Constitution requires in a particular case, we weigh several factors:
'First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)."
Exactly.
"To Protect and Serve" only applies to the community as a whole, and that the courts have ruled the law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect the individual.
Of course, in most cases, they will protect the individual, but there are times where they either cannot, or will not, and simply cannot be forced to do so. The Rodney King Riot of 1992 is a prime example of this.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
What we have here is evidence that better trained police, and more and more citizens authorized to arm themselves and carry concealed, are shooting the right people!
We have more JUSTIFIED homicides, in place of the UNJUSTIFIED homicides that likely would have taken place in their stead....
So this is GOOD NEWS! The RIGHT FOLKS ARE GETTING KILLED!
I'm amused by USA Today's attempt to spin this as some kind of ominous trend!
We have more JUSTIFIED homicides, in place of the UNJUSTIFIED homicides that likely would have taken place in their stead....
So this is GOOD NEWS! The RIGHT FOLKS ARE GETTING KILLED!
I'm amused by USA Today's attempt to spin this as some kind of ominous trend!
